New HDMI 2.1 Spec Includes Support For Dynamic HDR, 8K Resolution (techhive.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New HDMI 2.1 Spec Includes Support For Dynamic HDR, 8K Resolution (techhive.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday January 4, 2017 @06:41AM from the feel-bad-for-your-old-tv dept.

The HDMI Licensing Group has unveiled the HDMI 2.1 spec, adding support for dynamic HDR, 8K60, and 4K120. From a report on TechHive: To take full advantage of the new HDMI spec, you'll need a new 48-gigabit-per-second cable. That cable will also work with older HDMI 1.3 (10.2Gbps) and HDMI 2.0a (16Gbps) ports, but those ports don't support the new HDMI 2.1 features. [...] HDMI 2.1 adds support for the new object-oriented audio codecs -- such as Dolby Atmos and DTS X -- which can position audio events from movie soundtracks in 3D space.

192 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $89.99 by Joe_Dragon · 2017-01-04 06:44 · Score: 2

Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $89.99 and ask a blue shirt about our install deals and our audio systems.
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $8 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 06:45 · Score: 0

That sounds like a deal!
3d space by The-Ixian · 2017-01-04 06:46 · Score: 1

[...] which can position audio events from movie soundtracks in 3D space
I, for one, welcome this new THREE DIMENSIONAL space. I hate this crappy 2 dimensional world we have been living in our whole lives until now.

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
1. Re:3d space by Rei · 2017-01-04 08:19 · Score: 2
  
  Obviously what they're talking about is breaking individual sounds down into their own channels based on assignment to 3d spatial coordinates rather than having individual channels for some arbitrary "standard" set of speakers coming from certain "standardized" directions. Which is IMHO kind of neat. You could have as many speakers as you wanted and put them wherever you wanted. Or perhaps combine face recognition and ultrasonic directional speakers to give a very precise sound direction to each person within the area in front of the tv but nobody else in the building. It also lends itself well to alternative display technologies, such as VR. That's nearly taking the concept of sound capturing as far as it can go; about the only thing they could do more than true positioning would be to be able to capture sounds outside the human hearing range (maybe to get your dogs reacting to movies too? ;) )
  I sometimes think about what would be the "ultimate imaging format". What can really capture everything capturable and renderable? You can view a camera as a viewing frustrum, and could have any number of cameras viewing the same scene. Their frame timings won't necessarily line up unless they were specifically coordinated to - but then again, with rolling shutters, even different parts of the same frame often don't already. And why is that a bad thing? You could get rid of the concept of frames altogether and bundle pixel data into timestamped packets - so long as you have a reasonable way to describe what sort of angles those pixels are corresponding with, ideally a pattern (angle start/stop/increment for each axis, for example). Your display devices can likewise subsequently do away with the concept of frames and just update new data as soon as they get it - a virtually unlimited number of frames per second.
  With multiple cameras, or single cameras with depth sensing, you could have a z-buffer corresponding to cameras' pixel data. So your 3d display or VR headset could recalculate your stereoscopy with respect to where the viewer(s) are sitting, rather than just having a generic naive left/right positioning that sometimes causes discomfort in viewers. You can also render different objects into scenes post-facto (if the format also supports embedded 3d data), which could give producers some neat options to showcase their creativity and viewers to customize their experience. In an extreme case, with sufficient camera coverage, one could attempt to backengineer the full 3d environment from the different camera shots (photogrammetry), allowing for realtime free motion within it.
  A variety of other data could also be captured - albeit of questionable utility. An interesting, although very high bandwidth, option would be to store light as full spectra rather than just RGB. So you have the potential for perfect color restoration - even accurate enough for spectral analysis, for whatever that's worth (tetrachromats at the very least would appreciate the extra precision). There's also light outside the human visual range - for most users, the only advantage I can think of for storing it (apart from helping assist any 3d environment backcalculation - aka to see things that might be transparent to visible light but not UV or IR) would be that sometimes there's a lot of infrared but not visible light, and that makes you feel warm; a display device being able to radiate heat on demand, and from specific locations could actually be kind of neat, so long as it stays within comfort ranges. Another thing of questionable utility to capture is light polarization; the only utility I can think of for it is to assist in 3d environment backcalculation. Lastly, taking it to absurd extremes, you could capture data completely unrelated to light and sound, such as various forms of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. IMHO pretty useless except for physics applications and maybe security cameras at a nuclear facility, but.... Likewise things that aren't even directional - magnetic fields, electric
  
  --
  For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
I'm sure there's a reason... by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-01-04 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm sure there's a reason why someone might want 8K, but I've not even been convinced of the benefit of 4K yet.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
1. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  You obviously need to listen to more people spouting marketing bullshit and the early adopters that just cant accept they bought into a gimmick.
2. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  That's because the most common TV size is 55" and with a 55" TV there are ZERO benefits to 4K. 8K I guess you'll need like a 120" inch screen and a house pushing 5000sq feet. It's fast becoming on par with audiophile BS like balanced XLR cables and FLAC music -- utter flame unless you are some crazy rich dude with a mansion doing 50 foot long cable runs and own speakers with 2 ohm or lower peak impedances in rooms the size of a concert hall in which case -- sure this stuff all makes sense for you. The rest of us will not notice or care.
3. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  Or I guess you could have 2 hdmi cables for 8k each :-)
4. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Pascoea · 2017-01-04 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. Recently moved from a 63" (ish. Don't remember the actual dimension) 1080p LED DLP to a 60" 4k LCD. Unless I'm 2 feet from it there is no discernible difference. (Other than the 2 dozen dead pixels on my DLP) The only reason I got the 4k is that it was damn near the same price as the 1080.
5. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by quintesse · 2017-01-04 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Virtual Reality might be a reason. Although we'd need 8K90, not 8K60 and what we'd really want is 8K90 per eye, which comes to 16K90. So expect HDM2.1 to be outdated before it becomes available ;)
6. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by PhrostyMcByte · 2017-01-04 07:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  For movies, not much. There's definitely a wow factor in some of them but you quickly forget about it and just enjoy the movie.
  But for coding and web browsing, I found 4K to be a surprising win.
  The extra clarity in text is absolutely wonderful. With low-res screens I often find myself wanting to zoom in on text despite being able to read the small text without straining my eyes. When I got my first 4K screen I noticed I was no longer tempted to do any zooming.
7. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  I've read multiple places than the most common size is 40-42". I only know one person that has a 55" or larger, and I don't. I see no point in it.
8. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  That's because the most common TV size is 55" and with a 55" TV there are ZERO benefits to 4K.
  Like fuck there aren't. If you can't stand in front of a 1080p and a 4k screen (55" or even smaller) with the same demo showing on both and not see a huge difference then you are blind or have some sort or brain problem. HDR alone makes it worth it to get a 4k set. And someday when I can get a 100" set you'd better believe I'll be wanting 8k for it.
9. Re: I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  If you want stereoscopic 3D at 4K then you need two frames at 4K. You also need frame rates greater than 60Hz to avoid eye flicker.
  Early HD smart TV's do 3D with bluetooth glasses, but only at 60Hz.
10. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  there are ZERO benefits to 4K.
  I upgraded from a 16:10 20" monitor to a 4k 32" monitor for my desktop and let me tell you, there's absolutely a benefit, even if I had to fight with shitty UI to get it.
  Though I myself say that 8K is overkill, so ...
11. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  4K?
  I'm not convinced that of the benefit of Cyan and Magenta!
12. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by SirAstral · 2017-01-04 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  Early Adopter of 4k here. 8K is for the uselessly Rich bleeding edge adopters. 4k is still fresh, but no longer bleeding edge or early now in my opinion.
  Short story, there is already some benefit, but not much yet. So unless you are itchy for new tech hold off on going to spring for that new TV just yet.
  I Currently have a Samsung 4k UN65KS8000
  It was selected for the low input lag and that I could get it for $1500
  I Previously used a Visio 4k D55-D2 4k
  Both do very well on input lag in PC/Game modes. The Samsung was rought to initially find out how to turn game mode on, but a little bit of digging and you will find it. Visio was straight forward.
  I had a AMD Fury X9 and switched to an Nvidia 1080.
  I am obviously bound to HDMI so the 30hz only for the Fury was just not cutting it. the 1080 goes to 60hz and it is so much better. Sadly neither of the companies have Sync Tech available on these TV's yet so I still have to work out the ridiculousness of computers not locking to 60hz for v-sync to prevent screen tear. It is now 2017... geez folks! Work it out! Especially you browers!
  at 65 inches and 10 feet away from the TV (i use mine like a monitor) 4k is USELESS in desktop mode unless you sit closer like 2-4 feet. I still run 1080 on the desktop itself because of that. In video games, I run 4k when possible. Several games are poorly coded in the GUI so it can often become unreadable, move OFF screen, or just mess up in weird ways. Can very easily see the visible difference in gaming at 4k with some caveats. Even with 1080 card you have to relax the extra effects such as ssao/aa and detail levels to cope, but the difference is very noticeable either way.
  However, the quality is still visible up to 10 feet away. That said, the benefits are a mixed bag. Content of course for 4k is still very lacking. You can always try gimmicky up scaling with mixed results but source really needs to be 4k origin to really see the benefits. Any 4k source will look visibly better on a decent TV no matter how you slice it, just mind those gotchas if you do any gaming at all!
  I have given up on consoles so I have no experience on the 4k Scene there.
13. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-01-04 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason I got the 4k is that it was damn near the same price as the 1080.
  I recently got a 48" 4K HDTV for $350 at Costco during the holidays to replace a $200 26" CRT that I got 12 years ago. That's a big step up. The difference between 1080p and 4K, not so much.
14. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by MikeDataLink · 2017-01-04 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  Like fuck there aren't. If you can't stand in front of a 1080p and a 4k screen (55" or even smaller) with the same demo showing on both and not see a huge difference then you are blind or have some sort or brain problem.
  +1 for this. Every time someone says they can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4K, I think to myself "Just how bad is that mofos eyes???" There's a huge difference!
  They had an 8K TV setup at my local Best Buy on an 18 wheeler and actually fooled most of us that it was a window to the outside of the trailer, before they told us it was a TV. It literally looked like a piece of glass to the outside. They had it turned sideways and put a wooden border around it to enhance the effect.
  
  --
  Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
15. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Greyfox · 2017-01-04 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm on a comparatively tiny 15" laptop screen that's 4K, and the difference between 4K and 1080p is astounding to me. It's significantly sharper, and I'm quite keen to upgrade to a large 4K screen on my desktop machine. Unfortunately, that would require upgrading the entire machine, which I don't want to pay for just yet, but I will at the first opportunity.
  I've also started shooting my skydiving videos with a 4K GoPro, and even when viewing the videos at 1080, the difference is pretty amazing. You can actually see air traffic (Canopies, wingsuit guys, nearby planes, etc) that would not have been visible with the old GoPro. There have been several cases in the past where I'd be flying my wingsuit and spotted planes or tracking groups below me that didn't show up on the video with the old GoPro, and you can actually see the things that I saw on the jump with the new one.
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
16. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  Remember that bit rate is proportional to pixel count not row count, so 2 * 8k streams only comes to half the bit rate of 1 * 16k stream, so you've got plenty of scope to up the frame rate.
  I appreciate you were taking the piss a bit, but this new standard is ideal for VR because you can do 2 * 4k @ 90fps.
17. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  Hint: that difference you are seeing has more to do with a better backlight and newer panel tech than the resolution. You are almost certainly not resolving individual pixels. Did you go from a TN panel to IPS?
  For TV's it's BEYOND total BS on the screen sizes most people use. You aren't watching TV from 2 feet away.
18. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Rei · 2017-01-04 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  They had an 8K TV setup at my local Best Buy on an 18 wheeler and actually fooled most of us that it was a window to the outside of the trailer, before they told us it was a TV
  Apparently you don't have binocular vision. If someone puts a high-resolution print of a tunnel on a wall, do you try to run into it roadrunner-style?
  
  If you can't stand in front of a 1080p and a 4k screen (55" or even smaller) with the same demo showing on both and not see a huge difference then you are blind or have some sort or brain problem.
  No, it means you can differentiate between a difference from the number of pixels, vs. a difference from the quality of the source material and accuracy of colour rendering.
  
  --
  For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
19. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Miamicanes · 2017-01-04 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  With a 55" TV, the biggest benefit comes from having 4K **content** and a good scaler. By the time 2160p24 gets compressed down to something Netflix can handle, you MIGHT end up with the PQ of real, minimally-compressed 1080p24. Basically, 4K shaves away the shittiness that has gradually crept into mainstream "2k" HD video.
  For an illustrative example, think about a non-HDTV with s-video input and either cable or satellite TV. You can feed it a "SD" channel, or you can feed it a downrezzed "HD" channel. The TV might not have the resolution or bandwidth to take full advantage of HD, but the downrezzed HD channel will STILL look at least twice as good as the native SD channel.
  Put another way, we'll need "8k" HD to give us the PQ of uncompressed "4k", the same way we now need "4k" HD to give us the PQ of uncompressed "2k" HD. It's always better to get your own copy of the "good" source and do your own downrezzing locally, because when you delegate the downrezzing to the TV content provider, they'll always and invariably cut even MORE corners and make it look like shit by the time it gets to you. You can always throw away unnecessary detail, but once it's gone you can never really get it back. Just TRY watching live 1080i60 on a LCD... it'll either get BOB'ed down to 1920x540, or you'll get to see two footballs moving across the screen. Deinterlacing works for film content because it's 24fps duplicated 2 or 3 times to get 60fps. Deinterlacing fails MISERABLY for NATIVE interlaced content, because THEN you're trying to synthesize real detail that's gone forever... and trying harder just creates weirder and weirder artifacts (like things that YOU KNOW went away magically reappearing, because the video processor has no knowledge of context, and just knew that something appeared in that area a few frames ago).
  Frankly, I don't really understand why cable and satellite companies even still BOTHER delivering SD channels, instead of just having the box downrez the HD channel locally. It's not like it's hard or expensive to do anymore, and it would free up hundreds of megahertz of spectrum (or dozens of satellite transponders) and make room for things like 4k, 3D, etc.
20. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  That's funny since most printed text is printed at like 72dpi and nobody complains that printed text is pixelated or "unclear." The human eye isn't that good. What you are loving isn't resolution related -- it's the better backlight giving you better blacks than what you had on old 1080 monitors.
21. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by locopuyo · 2017-01-04 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  For movies, not much. There's definitely a wow factor in some of them but you quickly forget about it and just enjoy the movie.
  After getting used to higher resolution on my desktop and in games I occasionally get distracted by the resolution of 1080p TV and movies. I get used to it for a while then there will be a scene switch or something and I'll get bothered by it. Not as often as the jitter from low frame rate panning though.
  
  --
  The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
22. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, I can see the difference in those circumstances too. However, I don't stand in front of a TV when it's parked at home. I sit on a chair several times further away than when I'm standing in front of a wall full of TVs at Best Buy.
  For sitting on a computer desk at close range doing detailed work, 4k all the way. On a wall across the room watching the usual movies and TV shows? I don't see the point. I think color depth is more important than pixel density at that range. I suppose in that situation on a 4k TV there might be a natural averaging of multiple pixels into what your eye can perceive at a distance, but you don't need higher resolution to achieve that, only improved color depth on a 1080p display.
23. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Kjella · 2017-01-04 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure there's a reason why someone might want 8K, but I've not even been convinced of the benefit of 4K yet.
  Well on my UHD monitor I can see the difference between a 3840x2160 crop of a photo and the same photo resized to 1920x1080 and back, though it's not huge. If I use a really stupid upscaler to simulate a 1920x1080 screen it's even more obvious. But if I need it to watch TV... not so sure. But there's UHD the resolution and there's UHD the format with HDR, Rec.2020, 10 bit color etc. which all together is a pretty big improvement over BluRay. Going to 8K is probably going to be like 96KHz/24 bit audio, it might be nice if you're editing it and mixing it but for final presentation you don't need it.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
24. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  You should have gotten the 1080p one and invested the spare change towards some prescription lenses.
25. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by EvilSS · 2017-01-04 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure there's a reason why someone might want 8K, but I've not even been convinced of the benefit of 4K yet.
  Video walls. Like Barney Stinson had!
  
  Or projectors. Amazing how people forget those exist.
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
26. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  In the US, if you go into Costco (for example), you'll see many 65 and 70 inch TVs going out the door. We recently got a new house with a very large family room and our 46 inch TV didn't fill the space and actually looked sort of tiny there. My wife picked up a 65 inch one at Costco about three months ago and while she was buying hers and dealing with getting it to the car (having the staff help) they were helping two other people also buying 65 to 70 inch TVs at the same time. It seems to be more common that people are buying the larger ones now that the price has come down some (it was $1,250 for the 65 inch Vizio M65-D0 at the time - the M series is pretty decent). But yes, there is a huge installed base of smaller devices and it takes a long time (and the space to put one) before there will be a majority of larger TVs. A lady I work with is getting ready to put an 80 inch monster in their living room.
27. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  xK isn't what it's all about; it's the color depth the new panels bring to the table. Currently the standard HD display uses 8 bits per color, 0-255 range (depending on the standard - some are less). This is fine when you have a variety of colors, but when you have a single color like dark horror backgrounds, you probably notice a fsckton of banding. This is due to the lack of bits available to handle the full gamut. Going up to 10 bit, a mere 2 more bits, gives us a range of 0-1024 per color. Now that is very noticeable.
  Alas, greedy companies conspire to fsck things up. There are two competing HDR "standards", and just like blu-ray vs HDDVD, corps are lining up behind them based on fsck knows what. Some will support both. Dolby are driving one "standard", and unlike its alternative, it cannot be added later via a software update.
  And back on subject, it's no go just getting a new screen and cable; the chances are you'll need to upgrade the media device -> amp/receiver and the screen. Yeah, fsck that.
28. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  Well actually, 2 x 8K == 16K / 2
29. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Miamicanes · 2017-01-04 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, virtual reality needs higher resolutions, but it needs higher framerates even MORE. 60fps is enough to produce fluid video when passively watched (though synthetic video still needs some amount of added motion blur to be really convincing), but it's absolutely NOT fast enough for immersive video. When there's at least 1/60th of a second lag between your hand's motion and seeing your virtual hand move, you'll DEFINITELY notice the lag. 1/60th second lag feels, well... "laggy". 1/30th second lag feels downright sloppy.
  Human vision is hard to quantify. Your foveal vision (generally, color from cones) is relatively low-res and low-framerate, but your peripheral vision (generally monochrome from rods) is EXTREMELY sensitive to framerate at high contrast (as in, you have to be up around 300-600fps before it really, truly starts to become a non-issue for all users). And although your foveal vision is almost entirely cones, some people DO have enough foveal rod cells to act like pseudo "cyan cones" with the same contrast and motion sensitivity they'd have as peripheral vision (proof: over the years, researchers have found at least 2 or 3 men who appeared to be anomalous protan trichromats, but were REALLY deuteranopes with enough foveal rod cells to act like pseudo-"green" cones under the right lighting conditions). This is also why marijuana can sometimes make colors appear to be "psychedelic" -- it enables rod cells to continue functioning in brighter light than they normally would, and they start to act like cyan-sensitive cone cells. In other words, the stoned individual is temporarily "kind of" tetrachromatic, and perceives it as "seeing weird colors".
  100-150fps is a definite step up from 50-60fps, and a quantum improvement over 24/25/30fps. You can absolutely see the difference, even if you view them sequentially. This is also roughly the point where your eyes make their own motion blur, and you can stop worrying about having to create it in the source video itself.
  300-600fps is the next major step up, though at THIS rate you might have to see a simultaneous left/right comparison to accurately notice the difference. From what I've read, this is actually the point where you start falling into the uncanny valley. At 300-600fps, your eyes will blur frames together, but anomalies in motion from frame to frame will start to become "creepy". Basically, your eyes are telling your brain that you're seeing a real, live scene... but tiny parts of it aren't quite moving in PRECISELY the right way to BE a real, live scene.
30. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  What are you talking about? Cheap awful inkjet printers print text at 300 dpi. Better printers used by magazines are noticeably better than that.
31. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by EvilSS · 2017-01-04 08:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  That's funny since most printed text is printed at like 72dpi and nobody complains that printed text is pixelated or "unclear." The human eye isn't that good. What you are loving isn't resolution related -- it's the better backlight giving you better blacks than what you had on old 1080 monitors.
  
  That's funny since most printed text is printed at like 72dpi and nobody complains that printed text is pixelated or "unclear." The human eye isn't that good. What you are loving isn't resolution related -- it's the better backlight giving you better blacks than what you had on old 1080 monitors.
  Found the guy who's never worked on a 4K monitor. Try it for a while. Going back to 1080p it looks like text was rendered with a circular saw. I have a very new, high end 27" 144hz gaming monitor. I love it for games but I also have two 27" 4K monitors on the PC I use for work and the difference is extremely noticeable. Text and lines are razor sharp.
  
  Not to mention all that extra screen real estate!
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
32. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by ckatko · 2017-01-04 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone here saying 8K is useless was saying the same arguments about 4K.
  I'm standing now, in front of a 55" 4K monitor, two feet from my face. It's freaking beautiful for playing Chivalry, or having multiple remote desktops running at once.
  AMD and nVidia have BOTH come out and said 8K and 16K will come to the limits of the human eye and be useful. LG has just patented a process for their 11K TV because they say it "feels 3-D" without actually using any goggles.
  I just watched Jungle Book in 4K on and it was freaking amazing. A real stunner that I expected to suck. But graphically, the mountains and large buildings... we kept having to pause the screen. They fucking looked 3-D. They had depth, and for the first time in my life, mountains actually looked like... mountains.
  Anyone who says there's no reason to keep going, is an idiot. Do you realize how FUCKING HARD it was to shake everyone from NSTC and PAL? It took over a DECADE of work to get people to more toward extensible, forward-compatible standards. Why keep going? Fuck, WHY STOP NOW!
  We have computers that can do amazing stuff because people didn't stop to ask "Will it be useful?" They made cool stuff, and inventors found ways to exploit it. We can host web servers, we can run hundreds of Chrome tabs, and run 3-D games IN OUR BROWSERS, all as a "given" thanks to people pushing the envelope in niche areas.
  Will 8K be useful? Will 16K be useful? WHO KNOWS. But the shear amount of technology required to achieve that 8K/16K that we'll have at our fingertips in 10 years will blow us away. And even if we don't use that 8K/16K, we'll still be better off for it. AMD and nVidia are already pushing toward it and pushing toward Vulkan because OpenGL/DX simply don't scale well to multi-GPU solutions. And why? Because they both know (google it) that "anything above 6K will require a multiple-GPU solution." So we're going to have tons of advances in parallel-GPU technology, 3-D RAM that can supply the bandwidth, and more.
  NEVER put your foot down when a bunch of people are steam-rolling forward into new technology, even if you don't find the core goal useful. I don't use tablets, but that doesn't mean tablets and phones haven't helped pioneer trends in DPI-independent GUIs.
33. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by David_Hart · 2017-01-04 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  For movies, not much. There's definitely a wow factor in some of them but you quickly forget about it and just enjoy the movie.
  But for coding and web browsing, I found 4K to be a surprising win.
  The extra clarity in text is absolutely wonderful. With low-res screens I often find myself wanting to zoom in on text despite being able to read the small text without straining my eyes. When I got my first 4K screen I noticed I was no longer tempted to do any zooming.
  I disagree. For movies there is a good bit of difference, especially for 4K content with HDR. Is it a huge difference, nope. Is it enough of a difference to make it more enjoyable and more lifelike, yep! Is it worth upgrading just for the new format? Not yet. Not unless you have to (i.e. broken TV). I was planning on waiting another couple of years to go to 4K, but my Plasma died and it was under warranty.
  Do you notice the difference? Yes, definitely. For content that is filmed in 4K and uses HDR. The big caveat is that most 4K HDR movies only have some original 4K content, the rest is up-scaled, perhaps with better color gamut and less compression. They were not originally filmed in 4K. As more 4K content comes out, the differences will be easier to see. X-Men: Apocalypse, for example, was filmed in 4K and it shows.
  Of course, all of this assumes that you have your TV at the proper viewing distance for the size. If you have a 40" TV and are 8 feet away, a 720p picture will look fine. If you have a 65" and are 8 feet away, you'll notice the difference between 720p, 1080p, and 4K.
  https://www.avforums.com/artic...
34. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Miamicanes · 2017-01-04 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Your monitor goes from looking like a really high-res computer monitor, to looking like the brightly-illuminated output of a laser printer. My Nexus 6P has a ~480dpi screen, and I've gotten so spoiled by razor-crisp text, 200dpi text on a more average tablet now makes my eyes feel like they're bleeding.
  I actually bought a Chuwi Hi12 (2160x1440 12" display) JUST to use for ebook reading, because I couldn't stand to read ebooks on my older tablets anymore. It's a little too heavy to use as a "tablet" per se, but for reading pdf ebooks 2 pages at a time, it's *awesome* (at lower budgets, I'd recommend the Teclast x89 Kindow, which is the tablet I use for normal "tablet" tasks... it's under a hundred bucks, really light, and has a beautiful 1080x1440 3:4 display that's almost exactly the right aspect ratio for reading single pages of a pdf ebook... the hi12 is basically like having two x89 tablets side by side). Another decent tablet is the Teclast x98 pro... I almost bought one before discovering the Chuwi Hi12. As of late November, a x89 went for around $90 (I bought mine for ~$65 on eBay), an x98 Pro w/64gb went for around $150, and I paid around $230 for my Hi12. My only complaint about the Hi12 -- its clip-on keyboard SUCKS. The Hi12's active stylus is definitely worth $10-20, but the keyboard was a total waste of $50 (mostly because it misses keystrokes all the time). I'd still buy the Hi12, but wouldn't have bothered with the keyboard.
35. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by ausekilis · 2017-01-04 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Be careful with your comparisons, today's TV's have more differences than just number of pixels... hence the whole "HDR" bandwagon these days, which is all about setting a standard for color space for TV's that is comparable between manufacturers. The real "Wow" factor is not resolution, it's color reproduction and speed.
  
  The resolution of the human eye is measured in arc seconds, not pixels. Someone with 20/20 vision cannot differentiate 1080p from a higher resolution 50" T.V. when seated 6 feet away. That's the same as roughly 15" for a 24 inch 1080p monitor. So, unless you're sitting really close, or you just have a simply massive screen, those extra pixels are pretty useless.
36. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Rei · 2017-01-04 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  VR's an interesting case, if you can incorporate eye tracking. You only need that sort of resolution in the center of view; in the peripheral you could update only one in every X pixels in each direction, and have the display just fill in their neighbors with the same colour. Or you could only send the low frequency components of a compressed data block for peripheral areas, dropping all of the high frequency data (aka fine detail). Eye tracking wouldn't reduce the number of physical pixels that the screen needs, but it would greatly reduce the required bandwidth, by an order of magnitude. The eye tracking and playback latency would need to respond faster than your eye moves.
  However, your format would need to plan for an eye-tracking use case. Aka, you wouldn't want data to be stored as scanlines, you'd want it stored as blocks, and those blocks to have the low-frequency components grouped into the beginning of each block.
  
  --
  For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
37. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Just off the top of my head, kiosks, tradeshow booths, art installations...
38. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the spec allows for up to 8k/120hz...not that you bothered to read anything other than the headline...
39. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Everyone's talking at cross-purposes here, I think. This is why you're both right and wrong, with plenty of people on each side.
  4K for video is worthless (for approx 50-inchs screens, the kind of thing someone might be able to fit in their living room). But 4K in general is not worthless. Instead of watching a movie, try bringing up your favorite text editor and use a small font. You'll be able to easily spot the diff between 1080 and 4K then.
  Sure, 4K doesn't matter when you're "watching TV" the way old people mean it, but if you think of "TV" and "monitor" as interchangable synonyms, then it matters. You might even be able to see it on screen around 30 inches!
40. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck you, pushing the limits of silicon and putting image on a screen are different.
  Why does a dumb screen take longer to "boot" than a cold CRT? Fix that before adding moar resolutions.
41. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, text rendering is way nicer on a 4k monitor. HiDPI rocks on Linux, finally nice fonts. Just for that 4k is worth it! Also, even 3200 x 1800 13" laptop has way nicer smoothness if you aren't using overly flat UI.
42. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by epyT-R · 2017-01-04 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  You're blind and deaf, apparently, too. Ignorance is bliss I guess. While the jump isnt' as impressive as 240i to 1080p, it's still there. The bit about audio is certainly not true.
43. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  No, sir, fuck YOU...especially for using "moar" like a fucking idiot.
44. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-01-04 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  I've never stood by a 4K and 1080 side by side. Might I be able to tell the difference then? Maybe, without having experienced it, I don't know.
  I do know if I look at a random TV, I couldn't tell you if it were 4K or 1080 (without looking at specs). If the difference isn't big enough to notice without having two sets next to each other, I don't care to pay the extra.
  Granted, my eyesight actually isn't all that great!
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
45. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  On panels larger than 45 inches or so the difference is pretty striking even at regular viewing distance. (And 45 inch+ panels are pretty cheap. You can pick up a low-end 4k TV for around 350 at that size)
  At 1080p aliasing artifacts are painfully obvious on abrupt edges and a not insignificant amount of post processing goes in to hiding those effects.
  Along with 4k comes standards for higher color depth, which helps gradient artifacts - Like splotchy colors and shading in large dark areas - There aren't actually that many colors to spread over large dark areas at standard color depths. This creates artifacts that the human vision system is specifically adapted to notice. (Predators and prey hide in shadows after all) If you watch animated features or play games you'll also notice banding on computer generated gradients over large areas. If the current systems only show a small subset of the human's color perception (Take a look at a color space graph for common systems like sRGB sometime) why not expand it?
  You may not be able to pick out individual pixels on a 1080p display from your couch, but the low pixel density does contribute to visual artifacts. 4K fixes a lot of these problems.
  Also you can get a cheap 4k TV and use it as a giant monitor for cheap. 48 inch 4k displays have about the same pixel density as 24 inch 1080p monitor. (Just make sure the TV supports RGB pixel format and a no-overscan 'PC' mode. Also make sure your video card can do 4K over HDMI - Only very recent ones will support this)
46. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  I don't care to pay the extra.
  What extra? A lot of the 4k sets actually cost less than the same sized 1080p sets for some reason. And if not less then only a very few dollars more. It's worth the extra few dollars just for the HDR even if you don't care about the resolution. It's moot anyway as it won't be long before you won't even be able to find a 1080p for sale that's larger than 19" due to the 4k's being cheaper.
47. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  thought this was a tech-savvy site.
  general text, coding, art asset creation, and gaming all benefit heavily from increased resolution.
  what the shit is wrong with you people? 'member the "i cant tell the difference between 720p and 1080p" days? i dont see anyone downgrading, do you?
48. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  It's new & shiny, therefore (perceived as) better. A money grab as well as a the tech-peen bragging opportunity. Our eyes are apparently just under 4k as it is so you're right, no perception can be gained from 8.
49. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Locke2005 · 2017-01-04 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Human visual perception is limited to about 4000 pixels and 256 different levels of color. Encoding higher resolution is imperceptible by human beings, so what's the point?
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
50. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  1975 wants its dot matrix printer back.
51. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by AmiMoJo · 2017-01-04 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  For cinema size screens 4k is a bit crap. Looks pixelated to me, which is not surprising when you consider the low DPI.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
52. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Locke2005 · 2017-01-04 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  The absolute size of the TV is irrelevant. It's the ratio of the size of the TV to how close you're sitting to it! An 8K phone even makes sense if you're using it for google cardboard style VR goggles. If your sitting 4' away from your 55" TV, you can see the difference 4K makes. Agreed, most people don't sit close enough to the TV to tell the difference!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
53. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Locke2005 · 2017-01-04 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, that's exactly the reason I want a 4000x8000 resolution smart phone -- because it would be AWESOME for VR! 4000x4000 for each eye stereo video is the limit of human visual perception. With my Samsung Occulus and S7, I can still see the pixels.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
54. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Locke2005 · 2017-01-04 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  4K is the limit of human visual perception, so 4K makes sense in that you can't see the individual pixels when the entire screen is in your field of view. Going higher that 4K for video entertainment is pointless, it's only a marketing numbers game to get more money out of naive consumers. Recently, I discovered many vendors make TOSlink cables with gold-plated connectors. That's right, OPTICAL cables with gold plating, which does absolutely nothing to improve the light-conducting properties of the fiber! Consumers are stupid, and have been trained by Monster Cable that "Gold plated audio cable = good!" Even if it's not an analog electrical audio cable...
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
55. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  4K on my new 49inch TV definitely looks much better than 1080P. Maybe I won't be able to tell the difference in another 30 years, but I can for now. It's not something I *had* to have, but when it's on offer it's definitely nice to have in nature documentaries and some films. 8K on that TV I really wouldn't have been able to tell the difference with though, I have to be fairly close to it to see any pixelation on 4K - much closer than you'd sit for viewing. It's pretty handy having the panel support something above 1080p when using the TV for computer work too as that's a fairly low resolution these days. 8K would mean making fonts larger to maintain readability though so that would be taking it too far then. I can't really see 8K being useful except on 100inch TVs or home cinema projectors.
56. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by lgw · 2017-01-04 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  +1 for this. Every time someone says they can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4K, I think to myself "Just how bad is that mofos eyes???" There's a huge difference!
  I can set up a showroom so that you'd tally see the differece and be willing to pay for it, even though both screens were secretly identical. Never trust what you see in a showroom.
  For the home, it all comes down to viewing distance. With 4K you can see a difference, but you have be closer than most people find comfortable. With my 65" screen I'd have to be within 8 feet. But that's a legitimate use case for plenty of people, especially for gaming and for PC monitors.
  To see the difference between 4K and 8K OTOH, you have to be close enough that the TV exceeds your field of view. I could imagine doing that on purpose for some elaborate home theater set-up, but for almost everyone it's pointless. You can see the difference only by walking right up to the TV, not from any reasonable viewing distance, even close-ish for gaming.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
57. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  The extra clarity in text is absolutely wonderful. With low-res screens I often find myself wanting to zoom in on text despite being able to read the small text without straining my eyes. When I got my first 4K screen I noticed I was no longer tempted to do any zooming.
  Why don't you just get some corrective lenses and update those as needed? That way you won't have to retire 2 years from now because 8K isn't enough to stave off eyestrain and 16K isn't quite "there" yet.
58. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anubis+IV · 2017-01-04 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  HDR alone makes it worth it to get a 4k set.
  While 4K with HDR provides a definite improvement over 1080p, 4K doesn't necessarily include HDR. If you want to argue that 4K with HDR is markedly better than 1080p, I'll heartily agree. If you want to make the generalization that 4K (no mention of HDR) is better for everyone than 1080p, as you did, I'll suggest you've overstated your side.
  
  If you can't stand in front of a 1080p and a 4k screen (55" or even smaller) with the same demo showing on both and not see a huge difference then you are blind or have some sort or brain problem.
  So, a few things:
  A) Demo sets don't matter. Big box retailers know that when people are given the choice between two otherwise identical images, they'll choose a brighter, oversaturated image over a well-balanced one. That's why marketing images are always bright and oversaturated, and it's why Best Buy and others jack up the 4K set in ways that you'd never use at home, getting you to buy it instead of the cheaper one that would have looked the same if it been similarly misconfigured. Never mind, of course, that the first thing you're supposed to do when you get it home is calibrate it properly, thus negating the differences you saw in the store.
  B) No one watches their TV by standing in front of it like they did at the store. The only time a person will reasonably be that close to a display is in a desktop environment, which is the one place that 4K displays can actually make a lot of sense. The human eye's ability to distinguish the smoothness of a line (a.k.a. Vernier acuity) is significantly better than its ability to distinguish between individual pixels, so even people with average eyesight can appreciate the improved sharpness of text on a screen at higher resolutions. But for content that isn't primarily smooth lines (e.g. movies, games, etc.) and/or if the viewer is sitting at a typical TV viewing distance, only those with exceptionally good vision will even be capable of distinguishing the difference, let alone appreciating it.
  Even Dolby and other groups who recommend sitting relatively close to the display in order to produce a more immersive experience recommend having the viewer right at the cusp of where the average person is capable of distinguishing the difference between 1080p and 4K (though they do put people close enough to be able to easily appreciate 1080p over 720p). Again, however, just because someone can barely make out the difference at those distances does not mean that it's worth the upgrade.
  But HDR? Hell yes. Good stuff.
59. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  That's how it goes. A bunch of nay-sayers can't tell the difference between low and high quality because they're used to the low quality. But anyone that gets used to higher quality and goes back will see it clear as day. The center of human vision can see as high as 6 megapixels packed into an area the size of a thumbnail at arm's length. The rest of our vision is horrible outside of the center, but the center can move, giving a max resolution in the hundreds of millions of pixels.
  
  Of course these tests were not done with pictures or animation. Our vision is geared around differences. Our vision spends more time on edges than the body of an object. We may only need high resolution for edges where our center of vision is looking, and everything else could be very low, like 720p low.
60. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by KingMotley · 2017-01-04 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  wolfcrow made a mistake in that blog, of which was pointed out a few times in the comments. A 50" TV seated 6' away @2k only has a dpi of ~38dpi, well shy of the 100dpi required. A 65" TV seated 6' away @4k still only has 67dpi. A 65" TV seated 6' way @8k has 135dpi, which based on his calculations done correctly, would be indistinguishable. Of course that still makes a number of assumptions, like you have average eye sight, and you are sitting 6' away from your TV, eye sight towards the center of the eye isn't more precise (which it is), and your eye can only resolve 0.4arc min, which on his complimentary blog article, two independent sources say 0.2 arc min. Article found here: http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes...
61. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by KingMotley · 2017-01-04 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, fell short of the 120 dpi required, not 100. A 65" 8K TV at 6' is just about right (at 135dpi).
62. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by antdude · 2017-01-04 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  I used 4K on a work's Lenovo Thinkpad P50. It drove me nuts when programs don't fully support it! 4K is not quite ready for computing. :(
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
63. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by TheRaven64 · 2017-01-04 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm in very similar situation to the grandparent: my desk monitor became a 4K one a couple of years back. I can't remember the exact resolution of the old one: a little bit over 1080p. It's a huge difference in terms of readability. With the 4K monitor, I can't see individual pixels unless I get a lot closer than I normally sit and text is a lot more crisp and readable. 8K wouldn't be much benefit for a monitor this size, but some of my colleagues use dual-monitor configurations with individual ones the same size as mine and a single 8K monitor that big would probably be better.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
64. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by fnj · 2017-01-04 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  since most printed text is printed at like 72dpi
  Bwahaha. Yeah, back when we were using MX-80 dot matrix printers that was the case. Most laser printers are 300-600 dpi, and some are higher. Inkjet is usually several hundred.
65. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by fnj · 2017-01-04 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Human visual perception is limited to about 4000 pixels
  Arguably correct.
  
  and 256 different levels of color.
  Ludicrously wrong. Even 256 greyscale gives a painfully obvious stepping effect in a gradient. Even 16 million colors (256 R, 256 G, 256 B), while quite acceptable for most purposes, is readily detectable as deficient compared to 1 billion (1024 R, 1024 G, 1024 B).
66. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Ramze · 2017-01-05 00:40 · Score: 2
  
  Binocular human vision is only useful for 3D up to about 6 meters away (roughly 20 ft). Objects farther than 6 meters appear too similar in position to both eyes to discern distance accurately, so the brain uses other clues for reference. The average distance between human eyes is only 6 cm, and the parallax is so small of an angular difference at over 20 ft, the brain really can't tell the difference. That's partly why piers in the distance always seem so close, you could walk to them... and then 30 minutes walking on the beach later, you could still be very far away.
67. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by AmiMoJo · 2017-01-05 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  I'm looking for a reasonably priced 5k monitor. A 27 inch 5k screen seems to be the sweet spot. A standard definition 27" screen would be 2560x1440, and 5k is exactly twice that so you can use 200% scaling.
  The ideal screen size for 4k is 24", because a 1920x1080 24" monitor is close to the standard 96 DPI.
  There were some okay deals on 5k last month, but nothing spectacular. Hopefully this year though.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
68. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  Good luck getting into CES. Unless you are with a big company and have a badge, the bouncer will show you the door posthaste.
69. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by R.Mo_Robert · 2017-01-05 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's funny since most printed text is printed at like 72dpi and nobody complains that printed text is pixelated or "unclear." The human eye isn't that good. What you are loving isn't resolution related -- it's the better backlight giving you better blacks than what you had on old 1080 monitors.
  Uh, no, you're thinking of PPI on displays. Even cheap printers can usually handle at least 300x300 DPI. Most laser printers I've seen default to 600x600, and even ones marketed for home use are often capable of at least 1200 in at least one dimension. Many inkjets also are able to increase their DPI for "high quality" or photo printing.
  Let's take an average computer monitor, however--say a 22" monitor with 1680x1050 resolution. This gives about 90 PPI (or DPI as it's more often called here, even though some would argue that is not the correct term for displays). Early computer displays were often about 72 PPI, which is where your figure comes from (though Microsoft used 96 DPI for reasons beyond the scope of my explanation). Now, Apple's "Retina" and other high-DPI displays are on the market for both desktops and mobile devices, with PPI often in the 200s or 300s--closer to print.
  The difference people perceive is most certainly related to pixel density and not to better backlighting. While a better backlight might help with increasing contrast, if you compare high-DPI vs. "regular" displays side-by-side, I think you'll find the difference clear--as if this even needs to be explained given that your description of printed text is egregiously incorrect. (For added fun, turn off font smoothing and compare--half the reason people think text looks decent at all on a 90-ish DPI monitor is font smoothing, usually in the form of subpixel rendering on LCDs.)
  
  --
  R.Mo
70. Re: I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  "My eyesight isn't all that great"
  Obviously, if you can't see a difference between 1080 and 4k.
71. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Quarters · 2017-01-05 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  "That's funny since most printed text is printed at like 72dpi"
  That is entirely incorrect.You can't find any commercial quality high volume offset press that has such a ludicrously low resolution. Even twenty years ago, when I was stillworking in the publishing industry, final output was always at (or above) 1200dpi with color proofs coming at around 600dpi and b&w pasteupsoff of a laser printer at 300dpi. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING ever dropped below 150dpi.150 was a rarity, mostly from when a client would cheap out and only get a flatbed scan of a photograph instead of opting for the higher quality (andpricier) drum scan.
72. Re:I'm sure there's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-06 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Most text is *sized* for 72dpi (there is some conversion from "points" such as 12pt to dpi). This is not to be confused with printing resolution.
  Not even the worst printers print at 72dpi. Maybe cheap thermal for receipts. Laser is usually 600/1200dpi and many inkjets double or quadruple that.
Why 8k? by randomErr · 2017-01-04 06:49 · Score: 1

Since most theaters only project at 2K and 4K barely has a foothold in the home market, why? It seems like a new standard this early is really a bad idea. Some better compression technology could come along that will make this standard obsolete before its goes into consumer production. The only reason I can think of is a non-existent 3D technology.

--
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
1. Re:Why 8k? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  You hit the nail on the head. Only for 3D even 8K isn't close to enough something like 24K is what we need.
2. Re:Why 8k? by IMightB · 2017-01-04 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  You know Fuck it... Lets just go to 1024GigaK
3. Re:Why 8k? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong question. You should ask how NOT having a 8K standard would benefit the HDMI Licensing Group when that compression technology does not come along by the time 8K takes off.
  Correct, it wouldn't, and they would even run the risk of becoming obsolete themselves, replaced by something better.
  I think that answers your question.
4. Re:Why 8k? by Digicrat · 2017-01-04 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Standard theaters don't need higher resolution in part because nobody likes sitting close enough to the screen (first few rows) that the resolution is readily noticeable, and outside of the large IMAX theaters, the average screen distance to seat ratio isn't big enough to justify the cost of higher resolution projectors.
  Possible 8K Uses:
  * Large, High Resolution Desktop monitors for artists, as well as for developers that like densely packed screens. I'd gladly trade my current multi-display setup for something like a 50" curved 8K display.
  * 3D Movies at full resolution and frame rate
  * Virtual Reality (even with fancy lens blurring at the edges, current resolutions don't come close to matching the 'resolution' of the human eye)
  * Large (full field of view) TV screens at closer distances. Admittedly 4K is good enough for most standard TV sizes, but 8K becomes noticeable if you want to get up close with a 120"+ screens without seeing the pixels). Of course, home projectors at even the 4K resolution are still quite costly ... 8K is likely still several years away.
  * 8K in anything smaller than say 100" is likely useless, just as 4K is a waste in screens smaller than say 40" outside the desktop environment.
5. Re:Why 8k? by darkain · 2017-01-04 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  A MILLION 80 P !?!? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
6. Re:Why 8k? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  Because they're trying to promote a digital standard with built-in DRM instead of the analog VGA
7. Re:Why 8k? by Locke2005 · 2017-01-04 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Again, human visual perception is limited to about 4000 pixels across the field of view, so having a screen with greater resolution is only useful if you are planing on looking at just a fraction of the screen at a time. I think most movies assume you're looking at the whole screen!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
8. Re:Why 8k? by Locke2005 · 2017-01-04 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  8K buys you nothing when human visual perception is limited to 4K! "Duh, bigger numbers better!" appears to be the new marketing mantra.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
9. Re:Why 8k? by Carewolf · 2017-01-05 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Since most theaters only project at 2K and 4K barely has a foothold in the home market, why? It seems like a new standard this early is really a bad idea. Some better compression technology could come along that will make this standard obsolete before its goes into consumer production. The only reason I can think of is a non-existent 3D technology.
  I am really surprised people talking about cinemas with 2K projectors, that is some cheap shit, that is not even an upgrade from the analog film that came before. All cinemas I frequent has either analog (for old stuff and indie) or 4K digital. Still 8K digital would be nice, though I would prefer movies being shot at something faster than 24fps, that is a much better way to add visual details movie-goes can reliably perceive.
10. Re:Why 8k? by David_Hart · 2017-01-05 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  8K buys you nothing when human visual perception is limited to 4K! "Duh, bigger numbers better!" appears to be the new marketing mantra.
  But... From what I can find, some estimates are that the human eye can see up to 15 Million pixels. 4K is only about 8.3 million pixels. So, there is some benefit of going to 8K, about 48 million pixels, as it finally exceeds what the eye can theoretically handle. If you cut that in half to provide for 3D, then you have two 24 million pixel pictures that the eye cannot distinguish between computer generated and reality.
11. Re:Why 8k? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  Human visual perception does not see in pixels. 85% of our visual acuity is packed into 3% of our field of view. This is another place pixels breaks down. It's just an average with a crazy high standard deviation. The brain is highly analog and trying to compare our vision to pixel depth is like trying to claim a photon is a particle. The analogy works great until it doesn't, then it's horribly wrong.
12. Re:Why 8k? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  Visual acuity of the human eye is not uniform. If you want to make a screen that meets or exceeds the sharpest part of the eye across the entire screen, you're going into the hundreds of millions of pixels.
make sure you buy that smart er stupood monitor by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 06:51 · Score: 0

make sure you buy that smart er stupood monitor so we hackers can play with your new toy too!!!!
And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 06:53 · Score: 0

...so-called "8K" TVs will still overscan your image, resulting in a blurry mess.
1. Re:And yet... by thebes · 2017-01-04 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you, y'know, disable overscanning...
Re:Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $89 by SlashdotOgre · 2017-01-04 07:02 · Score: 3, Funny

Don't forget your extended warranty, only $49.99 + 10% deductible.

--
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $8 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:03 · Score: 1

Are the connectors gold plated to guarantee the highest quality digital reception with no sound or visual distortion that cheaper brands experience?
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $ by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:07 · Score: 0

No platinum with diamond studs. Get with the times.
What about closed captioning? by msblack · 2017-01-04 07:12 · Score: 1

But will the standard allow transmission of traditional closed captioning embedded in the video signal? Useful when the source doesn't provide open captioning or uses a crappy font.

--
signature pending slashdot approval
1. Re:What about closed captioning? by serviscope_minor · 2017-01-04 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  But will the standard allow transmission of traditional closed captioning embedded in the video signal? Useful when the source doesn't provide open captioning or uses a crappy font.
  If the source doesn't provide them I don't see why it helps. Likewise if they're encoded in the video with a crappy font you're out of luck. But if they're proper closed captions, then you should be able to change the font in your media player.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $ by rogoshen1 · 2017-01-04 07:16 · Score: 1

what about the directional channels for electrons? i hear those help with maximizing picture quality and audio fidelity.
meanwhile in Australia..... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:18 · Score: 0

we only just got 1080i on FTA on the main channels....after half arse fucking around thinking MPEG2 was a good idea, when MPEG4 was available....
still shitty bitrate on both FTA and pay tv....
atleast we have unlimited fibre - thanks Internode :)
Re:Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $89 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:20 · Score: 1

I understand you are being snarky here...but Monster Cables, while pricey, have a LIFETIME warranty, and in the case that the new standard exceeds the speed rating of your existing cable, they will upgrade you for FREE! So, say what you will about Monster, but current Monster customers get free replacements when the new cables come out!
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $8 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:21 · Score: 1

Gold plated copper is for proles. What you need is gold plated cryogenically flash frozen silver wire at $90 a meter. Silver has lower resistance than copper and the gold plating keeps it from oxidizing and the flash freezing does something or other that supposedly makes it worth $90 a meter for 25 cents worth of silver. You can total tell it's cleaner digital signal dude. And don't forget to toss in something about cable capacitance in the marketing material too cause that's totally an issue in runs under 100 feet....
All new stuff? by svendsen · 2017-01-04 07:24 · Score: 1

Great so my current receiver, tv and console are out of date. Time to throw it all away and buy new stuff for 8k!!!!
1. Re:All new stuff? by rnturn · 2017-01-04 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  They convinced us to do just that several times with our music collections. I'm sure the media companies are thinking "Why wouldn't they do it to watch movies at home?"
  
  --
  CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
To take full advantage of 8K ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-01-04 07:25 · Score: 1

A group of veterinarians and ophthalmology surgeons announced plans for a new procedure to enable people to enjoy 8K resolution monitors. The details are unclear, but it looks like they are planning to harvest fovea from eagle retinas and transplanting them in their volunteers. They feel the retinas and eye resolution of human beings do not do full justice to the 8K monitors. Mr Applef Anboy, spokesman for the American Association Of Consumers Of The Latest And Greatest Gadgets agreed. "We have reached the peak of what you can do with displays with iPhone 4 retinal display. The only thing left to improve is the human eye, not the display".

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:To take full advantage of 8K ... by Locke2005 · 2017-01-04 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's exactly the point I keep trying to make: human visual perception is limited to approximately 4000 pixels across the field of view. Doubling that resolution is absolutely imperceptible to a human viewer!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Dynamic HDR by berot3 · 2017-01-04 07:30 · Score: 1

The standard is non-dynamic HDR, except in Dolby's iteration. If dynamic HDR will be standard some day, does that mean that I have to by a new TV if I already bought a 2016 HDR-TV?
1. Re:Dynamic HDR by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  The dynamic HDR standard pushed by Dolby is losing the war. It's a better standard but Dolby doesn't make TV's and it just costs too much. Don't worry about it. Beta was better than VHS too and it lost.
  I would also add that ATMOS is a joke. You have to put the damn speaker in your ceiling or play absurd games trying to bounce the sound off walls which never works right. Who the hell is implementing full ATMOS systems besides a few millionaires with more money than brains? The rest of us will stick with 5.1 and 7.2.
2. Re:Dynamic HDR by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  T... does that mean that I have to by a new TV if I already bought a 2016 HDR-TV?
  Yes.
Re:Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $89 by EvilSS · 2017-01-04 07:44 · Score: 1

Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $89.99 ...>

It's on sale for 90% off!?

--
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
8K is the least interesting aspect of this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:44 · Score: 0

It supports 8K because it has the bandwidth to do that now, but more interestingly that bandwidth also allows 4K120, which is interesting when you want to hook up your PC to your 120 Hz TV, or for 4K 3D with 60 Hz.
Or when you want to drive your high refresh rate display using HDMI. My 2560x1440, 165 Hz monitor is best used with DisplayPort, with HDMI I can't go above 60 Hz.
But HDMI 2.1 also supports variable refresh rate (what G-Sync and FreeSync do). That is particularly interesting for TVs if you take the European market into account (panels with 50 or 100 Hz), or if you only have a 60 Hz panel in your TV. So if your source material is at 24 fps, or 30 fps, or 60 fps, you might have to compromise at the moment. If the panel supported variable refresh rate, it could adjust - e.g. it could run at 48 or 96 Hz for 24 fps material, or 90 Hz for 30 fps material, etc.
Re:Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $89 by Joe_Dragon · 2017-01-04 07:47 · Score: 1

not true but that is sales pitch that our old manager use to push for the disk guard plan. With the disk guard plan you can upgrade you madden to the next year under the plan (not true but cashiers where pushing it hard)
Yet another standard by djinn6 · 2017-01-04 07:48 · Score: 2

48-gigabit-per-second cable
The problem HDMI solves is the problem of shuffling data from one device to another. We've had 100 Gbit/s ethernet for years now, and those solve the exact same problem. USB and Thunderbolt also solve the same problem, but provides DC power on top of it. TV's are basically small computers at this point, there's absolutely no reason they need a specialized port just to receive data.
1. Re:Yet another standard by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  They need a specialized port to ensure that you have to pay another $25 in licensing fees.
2. Re:Yet another standard by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Really? 100Gbps ethernet? Maybe you should go look at the specs again. ONE Gbps is common at home, 10Gbps is common only in enterprise environments, 100Gbps is not common at all and usually requires fiber optics.
3. Re:Yet another standard by nickersonm · 2017-01-04 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  A 40Gbps IP-over-HDMI link sounds nice at consumer AV equipment prices.
4. Re:Yet another standard by Locke2005 · 2017-01-04 09:27 · Score: 2
  
  Great... so, how long will it take to download that 48Gbps video over my 100Mbps Comcast internet connection? Only 20 days for a 1 hour movie? Awesome! As I try to tell anyone buying a 4K TV: figure out where your 4K content is going to come from first! Comcast doesn't have 4K content, although they keep saying "Any day, real soon now!" And downloading 4K video from Netflix or Amazon Prime is probably going to put you over Comcast's new 1TByte/month data cap, costing you up to an additional $200/month. ($10 per each 50GB over the limit).
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
5. Re:Yet another standard by hattig · 2017-01-04 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  The only thing still missing from HDMI is power to drive HDMI attached media dongles. Maybe with HDMI 3.0 ...
  Still, modern TVs have enough USB ports these days to power a couple of these, or you can get single socket multi-usb adapters.
  A *consumer* 48Gbps cable is a pretty damn amazing creation, especially being backward / forward compatible with old ports / old cables.
6. Re:Yet another standard by rnturn · 2017-01-04 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  This.
  (Too bad I already commented and forfeited my moderation points.)
  
  --
  CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
7. Re:Yet another standard by KingMotley · 2017-01-04 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually only an additional $50/month for unlimited bandwidth, or free if you have Comcast Gigabit PRO (2gbps symetrical).
8. Re:Yet another standard by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. Now, if only they'd figure out some way to make the data smaller. I have some ideas and am going to patent a method I call "compression". Step 3 profit!
9. Re:Yet another standard by blindseer · 2017-01-04 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  The only thing still missing from HDMI is power to drive HDMI attached media dongles. Maybe with HDMI 3.0 ...
  It looks like MHL solved this problem by borrowing the HDMI connector, using the MHL protocol, and upping the current on some pins for power. The power isn't much, 5 watts is all, but enough to run a ChromeCast or something like it.
  
  A *consumer* 48Gbps cable is a pretty damn amazing creation, especially being backward / forward compatible with old ports / old cables.
  You mean like how USB-C can do 40Gbps, provide 100W for power, and is backward/forward compatible with USB-2.0, MHL, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, and (funnily enough) HDMI?
  I'm not impressed. 48Gbps may be larger bandwidth than Thunderbolt, SuperMHL, or DisplayPort but not hugely so. I can get Thunderbolt and DisplayPort now. SuperMHL is coming soon I expect, being announced a year or two ago. Sooner than HDMI 2.1 I expect as well. While I'm waiting for HDMI to catch up I can use the competition. By the time HDMI 2.1 products come to market I expect the competition to advance a step as well, bringing it's forward and backward compatibility with it.
  As it turns out DisplayPort and MHL have some backward and forward compatibility with HDMI, so even if I choose them I'm not leaving all my existing HDMI stuff behind.
  Again, not impressed.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
10. Re:Yet another standard by blindseer · 2017-01-04 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  A 40Gbps IP-over-HDMI link sounds nice at consumer AV equipment prices.
  You mean like how I can get IP-over-Thunderbolt at 40Gbps now? I don't have to wait 2 years for HDMI 2.1 to do what I've been doing for months already.
  I'm not impressed.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
11. Re:Yet another standard by blindseer · 2017-01-04 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  You underestimate the bandwidth of envelopes filled with Blu-ray discs sent by post.
  As I recall Netflix still rents out discs by post. If 4K and 8K become popular then services like this might become popular as well.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
12. Re:Yet another standard by fnj · 2017-01-04 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  Comcast Gigabit PRO (2gbps symetrical).
  Funny; there's no mention of any offering anywhere near that where I am. I could get 150/10, but it adds so much cost and my need is so slight that I stick with the 25/5.
13. Re:Yet another standard by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  100Gb/s ethernet DAC cables cost over a thousand dollars each. I want a cheaper solution than that.
14. Re:Yet another standard by AmiMoJo · 2017-01-05 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Don't understate just how impressive 48Gb/sec over a cheap $5 cable with cheap electronics is.
  100G ethernet is fairly expensive, but at least manages 7m over copper. USB 3.1 only goes up to 10Gb/sec, max 5m cable. Thunderbolt 3 tops out at 40GB/sec, and the power delivery is less than 10W, and the maximum copper cable length is 3m. Optical can go further but is more expensive to implement and consumers don't seem to like optical cables for some reason.
  As for why not just use an existing port, the answer is that none of them support the required data rate due to not having enough pairs of wires. Well, ethernet does, but the required cat 8 cable wasn't even a standard until 2013 so everyone had already settled on HDMI.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
15. Re: Yet another standard by KingMotley · 2017-01-05 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  For gigabit internet, Http://xfinity.com/gig-offer if you live in a city they have rolled it out to, but as I said, you should still be able to get unlimited for an additional $50 on whatever plan you have. Check http://dataplan.xfinity.com/fa...
16. Re:Yet another standard by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  Compression gets better at higher resolutions because of more repeated data. At the low end, like 140p or 320p, a small increase in resolution results in a huge increase in required bitrate, but by the time you start getting into the 1080p+ realm, doubling your resolution only results in about a 20% increase in required bitrate. 4k @ 20mbit/s looked pretty nice in motion with modern codecs. If you compare a given frame, the codec will show compression artifacts, but we don't see one frame at a time and the data is integrated over time and looks really nice.
17. Re:Yet another standard by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  Duh, that 48 Gbps is for uncompressed video, same as the situation with single link DVI and HDMI 1.0.
  DVDs came out in like 1996, with a solution to the problem you whine about, back then it was MPEG 2.
  Also display refresh rate doesn't have to correlate with your video files : 120Hz refresh will work on scrolling text, video games and perhaps extremely rare 120Hz video, while being a multiple of 60Hz, 24Hz and 30Hz, and working well enough with 25Hz and 50Hz content.
18. Re:Yet another standard by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  Ask Apple. They never met a dongle they didn't like!
Finally catching up to DisplayPort... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 07:53 · Score: 1

So it looks like HDMI is finally catching up to DisplayPort (again?). It's a shame the published DisplayPort spec that supports 8K60 and 4K120 was published back in March of 2016.
Also sucks more home devices don't support DisplayPort
1. Re:Finally catching up to DisplayPort... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  The recent display port specs only get to those higher resolutions by using compression. This new HDMI spec looks like it has enough bandwidth to do it without compression. Hopefully Dell refreshes their 27"5k monitor with HDMI 2.1 support, I would finally be able to move to a retina display now that the specs and video cards are capable.
When are we going optical? by BlueCoder · 2017-01-04 07:55 · Score: 2

Can we please bite the bullet? We survived the transition to HD. Remember when plain 1080i TV was 8 grand? People still pay $100 for digital monster cables.
Don't tell me laser are that expensive and yes I do understand about the frequencies. But plain red lasers use to cost $200 and now you can get them at the 99 cent store.
When are we going to transition over to optical? Why are the powers that be holding us back?
1. Re:When are we going optical? by TeknoHog · 2017-01-04 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's obvious if you look at the way people treat their cables. You can't expect them to obey something as esoteric as bend radius limits when their plain old copper wires hardly survive in one piece.
  Incidentally, S/PDIF isn't doing too great these days, which is a shame. One of my old laptops from 2005 had optical audio output, and it was awesome especially given the poor quality of its analog output. Since then, this feature has been missing from most laptops, and even with desktop mobos you have to be careful. It seems since HDMI came out, you shouldn't need any other way of getting raw digital audio, which seems especially silly with something like 5.1 or better -- you'll probably want something more than the toy speakers in the TV or monitor.
  Also, it sucks to have a professional laptop with DP output, only to realize that the projector at the venue only has consumer-style HDMI or even VGA.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
2. Re:When are we going optical? by hattig · 2017-01-04 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  I guess at some point HDMI will have to break compatibility with the form factor. Maybe for 16K120? However the reasonably sized, standard, non-changing, form factor is one of the selling points.
  So it makes sense to go optical then for the main data stream, although the temptation for them to push copper further will be very high. Look at USB 3 - I remember way back that they were thinking of optical USB as the future, and it turned into merely having even more standard I/Os.
3. Re:When are we going optical? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  I've often wondered that too since you already has TOSLink and the like for audio for years... why not bundle and transfer the the video over it all?
4. Re:When are we going optical? by AmiMoJo · 2017-01-05 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Optical is more expensive than copper, both for the cable and for the transceiver on either end. It's less flexible too, doesn't like being bent too much, especially if it is cheap.
  Sure, cheap lasers are cheap, but they also suck. To get the kind of speed required (48Gb/sec) from fibre it needs to be multi-mode, i.e. you need to send multiple optical signals down it. The diodes that generate and receive the signals simply can't switch fast enough to do it with one stream. So you need some expensive hardware.
  Try pricing up a couple of 100G optical ethernet NICs and a 10m cable. A quick search shows about $1000/card (which have massive heatsinks on them).
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:When are we going optical? by Blaskowicz · 2017-01-05 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  That TOSLink standard must be very wrong : it has enough transfer rate for very slightly above 1x CD speed - it was invented for 16bit 48KHz stereo as far I as know.
  Since then there's been eleven thousand encoding standards for surround, 5.1, ultra surround, 7.1 and tons of standards with "H", "X" or "S" in them. Because there's not enough bitrate for 8 channels of sound.
  So, it's more akin to infrared serial ports or week-end projects made by amateurs. It does not have the about 20,000x bigger bandwith needed for such thing as 4K 60Hz display signal.
6. Re:When are we going optical? by JesseMcDonald · 2017-01-05 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Incidentally, S/PDIF isn't doing too great these days, which is a shame. One of my old laptops from 2005 had optical audio output, and it was awesome especially given the poor quality of its analog output. Since then, this feature has been missing from most laptops, and even with desktop mobos you have to be careful.
  Current systems can generally output S/PDIF digital audio through the line-out port; it's a standard feature, though somewhat hidden. You just need to connect an RCA adapter (use the right/red channel) and enable the S/PDIF output switch in the sound card settings. Audio quality is the same as Toslink (optical S/PDIF), though the signal may attenuate over very long coax links. There are devices like this one available which convert from coax to Toslink.
  
  It seems since HDMI came out, you shouldn't need any other way of getting raw digital audio, which seems especially silly with something like 5.1 or better...
  Unfortunately, S/PDIF doesn't support multichannel PCM; to get more than two channels the audio has to be compressed (e.g. AC3). If you want uncompressed multichannel digital audio (e.g. Dolby TrueHD) the only option is an HDMI connection, and the relevant standards say this is only allowed in combination with HDCP. It is at least possible to live-transcode multichannel PCM to AC3 to get surround sound without the DRM, albeit at some cost in quality, CPU time, and latency.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
7. Re: When are we going optical? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think multimode means what you think it means.
8. Re:When are we going optical? by TeknoHog · 2017-01-06 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  Current systems can generally output S/PDIF digital audio through the line-out port; it's a standard feature, though somewhat hidden. You just need to connect an RCA adapter (use the right/red channel) and enable the S/PDIF output switch in the sound card settings. Audio quality is the same as Toslink (optical S/PDIF), though the signal may attenuate over very long coax links. There are devices like this one available which convert from coax to Toslink.
  Ah, good point. I'm pretty sure I've encountered this once before, with a sound card that was specifically advertised to output S/PDIF, while having only 3.5 mm jacks. Alas, it's not quite general, as my Thinkpad is lacking the feature (the digital outputs are all labeled with "HDMI" in alsa).
  Incidentally (and you probably know this already), the Toslink output in some earlier laptops was hidden within the line-out jack. A clever solution IMHO, as it doesn't mix up different kinds of signaling in the same electrical pin, and the light makes it clear there's something going on besides plain old analog. OTOH, it requires a small adapter for the Toslink fiber.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
9. Re:When are we going optical? by JesseMcDonald · 2017-01-07 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Alas, it's not quite general, as my Thinkpad is lacking the feature (the digital outputs are all labeled with "HDMI" in alsa).
  Now you made me investigate. :) My laptop doesn't list any IEC958 devices either, but it does have a SPDIF control in alsamixer so I thought that it would work anyway—on my media center PC that switch was all that was needed to enable digital audio to my receiver, even without using the special "spdif" or "iec958" ALSA device. Much to my surprise, however, on the laptop it had no effect. From digging into the low-level details with /proc/asound/card0/codec* and the hdajackretask utility from the alsa-tools-gui package, it seems the chip (a VIA VT1802) does support SPDIF, but the SPDIF-capable digital output pin is not connected to the headphone jack (or anywhere else). Apparently the motherboard designers ran out of space for the trivial amount of off-chip wiring necessary to make SPDIF functional.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $ by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-01-04 08:01 · Score: 2

what about the directional channels for electrons? i hear those help with maximizing picture quality and audio fidelity.
Yep, they make the ones straighter and the zeros rounder. But the cables have to use oxygen-free copper, braided on the thighs of virgins from a third-world country for it to work right.
That work used to be done by little old Italian widows listening to Verdi but then they unionized and things just haven't been the same since.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
All fine and dandy but ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:11 · Score: 0

When are they going to get around to address Closed Captioning?
Re:Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $89 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:19 · Score: 0

It IS true, and here's the proof:
https://www.monsterproducts.com/support/learning-center/hdmi/monster-cable-for-life-performance-promise
Re:BIZX, LLC HAS BEEN SERVING IT PROS WITH TOOLS A by Khyber · 2017-01-04 08:19 · Score: 0, Troll

"everyone else migrated to fark"
But then Drew hired that shitwhore Genevieve Marie SJW cunt and chased off those people.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Idiot stands in front of TV all day long by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:26 · Score: 0

I'm using a standing desk, and still standing far enough away that for video, there's not meaningful difference in resolution between full resolution 4K and 1080P. There is a meaningful difference in dynamic range, but that's at home with the lights off. 4K on the desktop is great for CAD work, where I do occasionally lean forward and squint at the screen. It's not significant in a home theater.
What you're likely confusing for a 4K improvement is the difference between 1080i or 720p broadcast sports v.s. a full frame rate. Comcast deliberately overcompresses sports feeds that aren't 4K.
Probably for the benefit of movie studios by Solandri · 2017-01-04 08:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

1080p Blu-ray was encrypted by HDCP. Intel somehow lost the master key, allowing anyone to decode any past and future content encoded with HDCP 2.1 or earlier. The studios' response was to create an entirely new, not backwards-compatible HDCP 2.2 around the time the HDMI 4k video standard (HDMI 2.0) was released. Unfortunately they did it late, so there was about a 1-year gap when 4k equipment was sold with HDMI 2.0 capability, but not HDCP 2.2. This meant that these 4k TVs and Blu-ray players could not play commercial 4k Blu-rays. If you burned your own 4k movies to Blu-ray they would play, but not the stuff Hollywood released. I spent a lot of time warning people not to buy 4k equipment that first year, and warning them to be careful to check for "HDCP 2.2" in the specs that second year. Hollywood doesn't care if your TV/Blu-ray player doesn't work. They just want their crap protected.

HDCP 2.2 was broken in late 2015. Not sure if it was cracked or someone just made a device using a legit HDCP 2.2 decryption key. But if it was cracked, we're probably going to go through all this again. Hollywood will insist a new not backwards-compatible HDCP 2.3, and it will be used to encode all future Blu-rays starting with 8k releases.

They also enjoy double- or triple-dipping: charging you full price for a license to the same movie in different formats. Same with the record studios, who had no qualms about charging your for the same song on vinyl, tape, and CD. The software industry gets this right - they let you upgrade at a discounted price if you own a previous version. This reflects the reality that you already purchased a license for the previous versions, and thus the new version is only giving you some new functionality instead of entirely new functionality. But Hollywood has self-deluded themselves into thinking that their product is a license when it's convenient for them if it's a license, and a product when it's convenient for them if it's a product. So will charge you full price even if you've already purchased licenses for the movie three times at 360i (VHS), 525i (DVD), and 1080p.

People need to stop putting up with this crap and demand lower-price upgrade licenses for content they've already paid for. IMHO a lot of piracy would disappear if the studios simply adopted pricing which better reflected reality. Most people want to pay content creators for their work, but not if they judge that the content creators are trying to rip them off. The whole fiasco with Windows XP support contracts is a great example. Microsoft pushed support contracts for XP hard and lots of companies signed up. Instead of buying XP, they were buying 3 years of Windows support, which would include XP and an upgrade to the next version of Windows (new versions normally come out about every 3 years). Unfortunately Vista got delayed and wasn't released until 5.5 years after XP - outside the support contract period these companies had paid for. There was hell to pay, with many companies believing Microsoft deliberately delayed Vista so they wouldn't have to fulfil that portion of the contract. Even though Microsoft eventually relented and gave these companies Vista, many of them will never buy a support contract or subscription software from Microsoft again. Because they judge it to be unfairly skewed in favor of the supplier.
1. Re:Probably for the benefit of movie studios by Locke2005 · 2017-01-04 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  A secret master key sounds pretty naive. EVERY decoding device needs to include that master key in some shape or form; eventually someone is going to reverse-engineer it and release it! Or more likely, like the failure of the Great Wall of China, somebody will just bribe one of the gatekeepers.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
2. Re:Probably for the benefit of movie studios by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  HDCP uses AES encryption with PKI, to supply key pairs on a per manufacturer basis.
  Each device is supposed to only need the master public key, and the device public key signed with the master private key (which is kept with Digital Content Protection LLC)
  This is why a bluray player needs network or phoneline connectivity. It sends the disc and device keys to DCP to obtain a signed decryption key for the disc that your device can use.
  The idea is that their servers can choose if they will provide a decryption key based on both the disc and/or the device. That way they can blacklist hardware, or at least a manufacturer, after the fact.
  Most all SSL CAs seem to be able to protect their master private keys pretty well, and no one has taken credit for obtaining or releasing the DCP private keys, so we don't really know what happened other than DCP clearly wasn't following best practices or possibly had a huge inside breach.
  It is very unlikely to have been AES brute forced or PKI reverse engineered, as the same method would also break all SSL on the Internet, and we see no evidence of that so far.
  But once the master private key was released, basically anyone can create decryption keys for their device and disc on the fly, making that hardware blacklist impossible to enforce.
  As for the older HDCP protocols, everything I've read about them claims it was an implementation error taken advantage of, aka they rolled their own encryption protocol and inevitably screwed it up.
3. Re:Probably for the benefit of movie studios by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 13:39 · Score: 0
  
  Yup. That's why a mere $20-$40 gets you an HDMI splitter that also simultaneously strips off HDCP, which makes the stream easily recordable, at least for earlier versions. On top of that, if people were really stuck they'd just point a video camera at the screen and be satisfied with that.
  HDCP is as much a useless and ineffective inconvenience as DVD's CSS was, but they keep updating it for some silly reason.
4. Re:Probably for the benefit of movie studios by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  No. Each device had a key DERIVED from the master key.
  Problem is: The cryptography was weak so the master key could be derived with 40 reverse engineered device keys.
Good, still making progress by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:31 · Score: 0

I thought DisplayPort 1.4 and its "visually lossless" (but not actually lossless) compression was the end of improving standards, but kudos to HDMI pushing the data rates further to 48 Gbps!!! 4K at 120Hz is actually "needed" for some applications, like gaming and 3D.
1. Re:Good, still making progress by bugs2squash · 2017-01-04 10:12 · Score: 2
  
  But why not simply use 100G ethernet ? If they pushed up the production volumes the price should surely come down and every ethernet application would benefit.
  
  --
  Nullius in verba
2. Re:Good, still making progress by blindseer · 2017-01-04 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  I have a few guesses. First is that Ethernet is bi-directional, video doesn't need that. Sure there is some up link data, for things like telling the source device the supported resolutions, key exchange for DRM, remote control signals, and so on, but those are all very low data compared to the video, it doesn't take 100Gbps for that to work. Second is overhead. Ethernet packets have data in the frames telling the destination device things it does not need to know to do video. Ethernet is a bus but this is a simple device to device use, it doesn't need things like source and destination addresses. I don't know if error correction is used in HDMI but if it is I imagine it's much less robust than Ethernet.
  It may be true that if used more widely the connectors and cables would get cheaper but HDMI already has customers for their own connector, the cost for this is sunk. It might mean updating the manufacturing to get the higher data rates but this would not require a complete redo of the manufacturing. It also means little redesign of the devices that use the old HDMI standard to use the new, for example the cutout hole for the connector is identical, the circuit board might be new but the plastic case is unchanged.
  Backward compatibility. People buying a new HDMI 2.1 device has reasonable assurance it will still work with their HDMI 1.3 devices with no new cables, no new setup, it "just works".
  Here is the biggest reason in my opinion, branding. HDMI owns the connectors, the protocol, and all the other IP involved. They can charge manufacturers for the benefit of using their brand and collect all the royalties. If they use an Ethernet connector, packet structure, or whatever, then they'd have to share some of that money with the Ethernet people, or not be able to charge for it at all.
  This branding also benefits the consumer too, which is an extension of my earlier point on backward compatibility. With HDMI controlling the connector, protocol, etc. they can assure the customer that if the HDMI symbol is on their device then it's been tested to meet the standards of that specification, things just work. This may actually prove cheaper for the consumer, at least in the short run. It means less of an economy of scale on 100G Ethernet though, so future tech might be more expensive than if it was adopted for HDMI.
  I'm with you though on the connector part, the HDMI connector isn't all that great and just about anything would be an improvement.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Re:BIZX, LLC HAS BEEN SERVING IT PROS WITH TOOLS A by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 08:48 · Score: 0

What the hell are you babbling about?
DTS:X and Atmos already out. by Zargg · 2017-01-04 09:03 · Score: 1

Not sure what the article is referring to, we've had DTS:X and Atmos enabled Blu-rays and receivers for quite a while already...
1. Re:DTS:X and Atmos already out. by nwf · 2017-01-04 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure what the article is referring to, we've had DTS:X and Atmos enabled Blu-rays and receivers for quite a while already...
  That's likely just a bit stream which has no meaning per the spec. I think the spec is allowing for a higher-level way of sending that sort of audio, such that you could decode Atmos into some number of PCM streams placed in 3D space vs an Atmos bit stream. Not really sure how that helps anyone.
  I know my AppleTV decodes surround sound into straight PCM surround which it sends to my receiver. I guess this would be similar, but with N spatial channels.
  
  --
  I don't know, but it works for me.
Funny thing about 8K... by Locke2005 · 2017-01-04 09:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

8K is TWICE the resolution of human eye, which can only distinguish about 4000 pixels across the field of vision. Higher resolution is only useful if you're sitting close enough to only see half the screen in your field of view! Point it, 4K is the point of diminishing returns in video resolution. At 4K, you cannot distinguish individual pixels when the entire screen is in your field of view. Higher resolution for a TV screen is pointless. Higher resolution for a camera only makes sense if you plan on blowing the image or a section of the image up.Satellite cameras can still use all the resolution they can get.

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
1. Re:Funny thing about 8K... by djbckr · 2017-01-04 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  I would suggest that the 8K support is mainly geared toward professional capture. Current [very] high-end cameras support 8K capture, but managing the output is proprietary per brand. The pros use the 8K to work with editing/zooming allowing them to keep at least a 4K image as final output. IMO, having the HDMI spec support 8K is a good move to standardize video transfer. I see it supports 60fps too. Another good move. I really can't imagine why consumer equipment would exceed 4K - but I'm sure somebody will make it, and somebody will buy it just to show off.
2. Re:Funny thing about 8K... by blindseer · 2017-01-04 17:15 · Score: 2
  
  IMO, having the HDMI spec support 8K is a good move to standardize video transfer.
  In my experience the HDMI standard is already dead or dying. I'd much rather see a more common connector be used if backward compatibility is required. I'd also rather see a better designed connector used than HDMI. HDMI is friction fit and heavy, meaning the connector can work itself loose under its own weight. DVI doesn't have this problem (screws), USB-C doesn't have this problem (small and light), and neither does DisplayPort (locking tab).
  I've seen SuperMHL announced a year ago, not that you'll find any products with it yet but it does have a head start. It offers 8K/120 resolution, reversible connector, and power over the cable. It's also backward compatible with the existing HDMI connector, limited to 1080p right now but that can change too just like this announcement from HDMI.
  I see why they made this update, they want to compete with MHL and DisplayPort, but I'd rather it just die off. If HDMI wants to stay relevant then they need more than just updating the data rate, they need to offer more than the competition. It's possible they can stay afloat for a very long time based on inertia and backward compatibility but this seems to me to be a shrinking market. MHL and DisplayPort pretty much already own the computer and portable electronics markets. They hang on with support from backward compatibility but if that is the reason to stay then I can counter that with a pile of electronics in my house that have HDMI and some other input or output with it like component video, VGA, or DisplayPort. If people have old electronics then it's quite possible they can just skip over HDMI and move on to something that will come out sooner and work just as well.
  In short, I think this is too little and too late to save HDMI. I won't miss it if it disappears since I've pretty much skipped over it already. It's not that I don't have any HDMI devices, I have several in fact, I just don't have any devices where the HDMI ports are connected to anything.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
3. Re:Funny thing about 8K... by Ramze · 2017-01-05 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. For 20/20 vision ("good" eyesight), the limit is closer to 5K, so most everyone will notice the difference from 4K to 8K because it will surpass the 5K barrier. But, that's not the limit of human eyesight. There are those of us with 20/10 vision and better that can discern up to 11K or better. Lots of pilots have "eagle eye" vision in the 20/10 or better range. One can also get better than 20/10 with laser eye surgery.
  You can read up on a decent article about it here:
  http://www.red.com/learn/red-1...
  My bet is it'll hit a barrier at 16K where no one will be able to appreciate anything higher, but we aren't there yet.
4. Re:Funny thing about 8K... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  What? I can tell the damn subpixel order of my 2560x1600 screen at a distance where its edges start to fade away when staring at the center. Are you sure you don't make some silly assumptions like the pixel angle being constant?
5. Re:Funny thing about 8K... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  The human eye does not have uniform resolution. The fovea centralis has a resolution of 31.4 arc seconds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis I have a 40" 4k tv which I use at a 2' viewing distance (it is wonderful btw). I'm near sighted and at that distance have perfect vision. I can see individual pixels. To get a display that matches the fovea centralis would be a 32" 8k display (at 2' viewing distance), or a 16" 4k display. This can be simulated by moving farther back from the display. I lose the ability to discern individual pixels at about 4', on my 40" 4k. This is a little less than 31.4 arc seconds but may be my nearsightedness coming into play. Test it yourself.
  Now you may argue that the fovea centralis resolution is not that important. Firstly, to say higher resolution is unnoticeable below this threshold is simply wrong. Secondly, it is important. 50% of the visual cortex processes information from this area of the eye. Diminishing returns, certainly. To me text looks much nicer. On games, 4k on high looks much better than 1080p on ultra. Well worth the $600 for the tv and video card to run it. I wait for 8k with anticipation, and will buy it once it comes down to a reasonable price. I just hope it doesn't take as last iteration. Dual 8k 32" monitors is where it will be un-improvable IMHO. (Written from my 1366 x 768 monitor at work :p).
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $8 by ArmoredDragon · 2017-01-04 09:19 · Score: 1

Cables made by monoprice also carry a lifetime warranty, plus free shipping when you make a claim.
Atmospheric Omission System? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 09:24 · Score: 0

Sontar-Ha!
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $ by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 09:27 · Score: 0

what about the directional channels for electrons? i hear those help with maximizing picture quality and audio fidelity.
Yep, they make the ones straighter and the zeros rounder. But the cables have to use oxygen-free copper, braided on the thighs of virgins from a third-world country for it to work right.
That work used to be done by little old Italian widows listening to Verdi but then they unionized and things just haven't been the same since.
Any way we can upgrade the virgins to second world? I have a thing for Russian chicks.
Re:Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $89 by Joe_Dragon · 2017-01-04 09:41 · Score: 1

when you take our home install deal and must buy at least 2 of them of 1 from your tv box to the sound system and from from the sound system to the tv.
Re:Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $89 by Locke2005 · 2017-01-04 09:54 · Score: 2

In a blind comparison test, Monster Cables were indistinguishable from wire coathangers running a couple feet between the amp and speakers. Granted, for really long cable runs, i.e. 100 foot or more, good shielding and impedance matching makes a difference.

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $8 by Locke2005 · 2017-01-04 09:55 · Score: 1

...and if you believe that, then... you probably voted for Trump!

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $89 by lgw · 2017-01-04 10:09 · Score: 2

The main advantage to good cables is simple mechanical reliability. But you can get $5-10 cables form Dayton (or in some cases Amazon Basics) that look to be made in the same factory as Monster cables.
Even for long runs for digital cables, where shielding and impedance matching barely matter, acceptable quality can actually get expensive as you need larger wire gauge (or a repeater) for long runs. Don't take the cheapest 50-foot HDMI cable, or you'll get one that works most days.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Now if only... by rnturn · 2017-01-04 10:16 · Score: 1

... there was actually content that actually needed 8K resolution. Is it possible that watching `Two Broke Girls" or `Kevin Can Wait' in 8K will actually make them enjoyable. Maybe having the laugh track accurately positioned in three dimensions will be the must-have feature that makes the new HDMI spec worth the extra money. (Too cynical?)

--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
1. Re:Now if only... by blindseer · 2017-01-04 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  ... there was actually content that actually needed 8K resolution.
  Sports.
  Watching sports doesn't "need" 8K video. People have been listening to sports broadcasts on the radio for a very long time now, so they don't "need" any video at all. In fact there are numerous profitable sports only radio channels right now. I suspect that this is largely due to a captive audience that drive, but I also suspect these same people would like to enjoy their sports in 8K when they are not on the road. With sports there can be a lot happening on a large area. People watching might appreciate a larger view of the action and still being able to recognize the athletes by their face or number they wear.
  I've heard that Star Trek and Bonanza sold a lot of color televisions. I've heard that porn sold a lot of VCRs. I believe that sports will sell a lot of 8K televisions.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
8K would be fantastic at my office. by Overzeetop · 2017-01-04 10:54 · Score: 1

For TV and movies, perhaps, but I'm still waiting for it for desktop use. And, by desktop, I mean like a Surface Studio with a 48-50" monitor for working on full size E architectural prints. I may not be able to see pixels on more than a portion of the screen, but there's no bigger productivity killer than having to constantly scroll around a print looking through a little "window" onto the page. Right now I use a pair of 42" 4k monitors which is good for a D size drawing at nearly 1:1. Even so, at my normal 20-24" viewing distance there is considerable pixelization. Pushing the dpi to 200 for rendering prints would be nice, but I'd settle for 160-180dpi and full size E prints.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Hasn't Object Oriented surround sound been around? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 10:58 · Score: 0

Since at least some point in first half of 2016? I know I enjoyed playing atmos demos bitstreamed from my PC to Atmos receiver.
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $8 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 11:10 · Score: 0

My other comment got deleted, maybe because I linked to the guarantee on Monster's site...but in any case, Monster guarantees that their products are future proof, and if they won't work with a new standard, they will replace them for free. Monoprice guarantees that their cables will work with the current spec, but will not guarantee that they will work with future standards.
Re:Monster is old news by AlanObject · 2017-01-04 12:27 · Score: 1

I recall Monster cables just a year ago were listed at $900 plus. I just looked and that's not the thing anymore.
Now you can steal a bargain for $289.98 AudioQuest HDMI cable. There's a "platinum" version and it comes in chocolate brown. No, really.
Ten thousand dorrar?!!#& by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 13:47 · Score: 0

Does anybody know how much that cable will cost?
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $ by ArtemaOne · 2017-01-04 14:35 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Why keep the crappy connector? by blindseer · 2017-01-04 14:42 · Score: 1

Ever since HDMI came out I've heard people complain about the connector. It's too big for most any portable device, has only friction to hold it in place, leading to a common problem of the connection coming loose from just the weight of the cable. I recall it being described by someone as how a computer scientist would solve an electrical engineering problem. Not to call computer scientists stupid or anything it's just that the basic level of electronic theory required by a computer science degree is insufficient to make a quality transmission line and connector. This is from someone that studied electrical and computer engineering but is now back in school to study computer science.
DVI and VGA have screws to hold them in place. DisplayPort has a locking tab. USB-C is friction fit but it's a much smaller connector. HDMI is friction fit and heavy, meaning it tends to make a poor connection. The USB-C connector already has an alternate mode for DVI/HDMI which means that they already have access to a port/connector which is capable of 40GBps. Is it possible to extend this to the 48Gbps they needed to get the quality they desired without needing a new connector? If they can take the HDMI 2.0 connector at 18GBps and get 48Gbps speeds for HDMI 2.1 then I suspect it is conceivable to squeeze 48Gbps from the USB-C connector that is already rated for 40Gbps for Thunderbolt. Seems to me that all they'd need to do is extend the USB-C HDMI alternate mode to cover the new 2.1 protocol. Which brings up the question, will HDMI 2.1 come to the USB-C alternate mode? Even if that means limiting it to only those resolutions allowed by a 40Gbps link?
Designing a new connector would be expensive, no doubt. Qualifying any other existing connector for the higher data rates should be no more expensive than doing the same for the existing HDMI connector. USB-C and DisplayPort are both already backward compatible with HDMI, they could have used either or both of those connectors. They have some deal with the MHL where MHL signals can use HDMI connections, perhaps they could do the reverse and have HDMI signals on the new SuperMHL connector.
This gets down to HDMI either going through the expense of extending their own connector specs, extending the specs of some other existing connector to include the new HDMI signal, or designing a new connector. Well, we already have enough connectors out there, so I'm at least glad they didn't make a new one.
So, why stick with this crappy connector? I've concluded it's about branding. The brand is the connector. If they abandon the existing HDMI connector then the HDMI brand effectively disappears. I would not miss HDMI if it does go away since the market is already full of a number of many suitable replacements, from the old DVI and VGA to the newer DisplayPort and MHL. I'd rather it did go away so I wouldn't have to keep so many adapters around.

--
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $8 by ArmoredDragon · 2017-01-04 15:11 · Score: 2

Who needs future proofing when the cable only costs $4? At the rate new cables come out, it would take monster cable basically 50 years to break even with monoprice.
So you're saying.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 20:56 · Score: 0

4K should be good enough for anybody?
Breaking the laws of physics? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-04 22:58 · Score: 0

The original HDMI standard is 10GBps.
This new HDMI 2.1 standard can apparently push 48GBps over the same cable!?
How do they manage to quadruple the data rate on the same cable???
It seems to me they are bending the laws of physics.
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $8 by Xicor · 2017-01-05 00:21 · Score: 1

There was someone who tested this at some point and found that people couldnt tell the difference between gold plated copper wire and a coathanger in terms of sound quality .
They did some whacky stuff to try to protect it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 05:32 · Score: 0

I had an old JVC rear-protejection TV with a DVI input that had HDCP code. It had a problem and while searching around for how to fix it (never did fix it as it was to much of a pain vs buying new), the instructions mentioned making sure to take steps to prevent the built-in "self destruct device" from wiping the HDCP code (supposedly a photo-diode would initiate this process, so you had to remove power and then try to cover it up from light.)
I also had issues with the HDMI port on my super-expensive replacement TV (a 45" Sharp Aquos that I got "super-cheap" for like $3300 US) suddenly failing the HDCP handshake after a few years. Luckily the DVI port with an HDMI to DVI got me 5 more years after that started to occur.
After these experiences, I am pretty peaved at the whole HDCP idea.
Re:Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $89 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 06:41 · Score: 0

Don't forget the extended warranty!
Re: Get your HDMI 2.1 Monster cable to day only $8 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-05 06:45 · Score: 0

Speaker cables are not required to be impedance matched. We're talking about audio frequencies. The reactive component is practically non-existent.
Can we get a cable that locks into place? by wikthemighty · 2017-01-05 07:24 · Score: 1

To hell with 8K, I just want an HDMI cable that stays put when I plug it in!

--
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer